Printable View
I didn't think anyone was saying that if you are using the app you are guaranteed not to get infected. As I understand it if only 40% of people take up the app the chances would be 60% that, if infected, you would be infected by someone without the app. Therefore you would not be notified promptly once your infector got symptoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider
Nor did I say that either. The greater the number of people with the app, the faster contacts can be identified, informed and isolated. I value my privacy as well as the next man but it doesn't supersede the health of my loved ones. If I had been in contact with someone who fell ill, I'd want to know as soon as possible that I presented a risk to others and the hell with my 21st century worries about privacy. I sometimes wonder if we're becoming a fearful people like the Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
mick
Mick, I was not talking about privacy issues. I have location turned on on my phone and once a month I get a nice little google maps diagram of everywhere I went every day of the previous month. It comes in real handy for filling in my travelling expenses claims for DVA. I don't care if they find out who I stopped and talked to for 15 minutes. I don't even care if they know where we talked or what we talked about. I have nothing to hide. The Government knows more about me than I know myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider
What does bother me is that IF I get infected chances are greater than 50-50 that it will be from someone without the app or someone that I was close to for less than 15 minutes and I will not get a notification. Same applies for anyone who I might subsequently infect.
I know that when you go fishing you can't expect to catch all the fish and all that, but the whole system seems pretty hit-and-miss, yet they are talking about being able to ease social distancing restrictions based on an app that will miss more than it will get.
In principle I'm not opposed to the App but I had a bit of a think about how many people I have had contact with in the past 2 weeks, and how many of those have been for more than 15 minutes and it turns out to be 2. My nephew when we did Grandmas eaves job, and one of my Bros who came around for a coffee but he sat >3m away from us on the front veranda.
The last time I was in a large group most of whom I did not know was March 11 (I do keep a sort of a diary/calendar) while doing a dust consult at a large mens shed. I was super nervous at the large number of people round me and I'm not going to do any more of these for some time.
I don't work and we've never been that social so we rarely "went out", pre COVID. We did drop some easter eggs off on my my son's front door mat just before Easter and waved hello through the front window - 2 mins max. My son and his family have agreed to not being in the same room for the foreseeable future.
We do online grocery shopping/purchasing or I drive and SWMBO goes into the shops.
My next specialist checkup is by Skype.
I agree, the 15 minute issue is a real weakness with the app for me as I've generally avoided crowds/people for most of my life so I'm now quite good at avoiding them and was already keeping contacts ASAP. COVID distancing just gives me an opportunity to do this even more. However, this means the majority of my interactions with people are usually much less than 15 minutes, and some like blood tests are very close contact, so I do wear a mask - for blood tests i wear a P2.Quote:
What does bother me is that IF I get infected chances are greater than 50-50 that it will be from someone without the app or someone that I was close to for less than 15 minutes and I will not get a notification. Same applies for anyone who I might subsequently infect.
During the last 2 weeks;
I got my flu shot - arrived at surgery and had to stay in car and call surgery. Doc came out and gave me the shot through open car window max 10s close contact.
I've taken one of the dogs to vet several times - same thing. Arrived, called, wait by door for Vet nurse to come out and take dog. I wait in car and we did the consult over the phone. Nurse came out and handed dog back, I wave pay pass over the machine to pay, 10s contact.
Dropped around to the mens shed to pick up a long ladder - two other persons there to give me a hand to put it on roof rack, 3m or more separation at all times, but 2 minutes contact at most. Same at drop off.
Went to bakery at 7:45 am - only guy on front counter around, so in and out real quick - 30s contact at most.
Same with Kebab shop. 15 secs contact to place order - wait outside in car and then 10s to pick up at most.
Cooked chook shop stop is a drive thru.
I have regular Blood tests - arrive, hand over my request and wait outside. Called in when ready, 5 minutes tops - all done.
Saw neighbours and a relative at the park several times - kept 3m away but maybe 2 minute contact each at most.
None of these contacts would be picked up by the app, lucky I have a fair memory - I think I will do the NZ thing and write these down - it sounds like this will be much more effective for me than the app. Given I will be writing these down I might as well write down the 15minute ones as well, especially as I don't always take my phone with me when I go out, and often I have it switched off or the battery has run out. I will keep the list of all my contacts on the mobile and hand it over to them if and when they ask.
Even though WA now has a social gathering max of 10 people, we're not planning to avail ourselves of this in the next few months.
Fair enough, Doug. It certainly will be hit and miss, but it's better than we've got now where our tax is paying people to ask every person who gets crook to try and remember everyone with whom they came into contact in the last two weeks and then ring all those people to warn them.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
Like BobL, the only living being I've come close to in the last fortnight is a heifer which got into the yard and wiped its scouring bum on the door of my ute. But I've still downloaded the app.
Stay safe, dig.
mick
And I hope you convinced the heifer to do the same as well!Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider
I will explain why I will not download the app.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider
The government says that the app "will work" if 40% of the population uses it. Think about what the government means by "will work".
Do you think for a minute that they mean it will save you and me from Covid-19? I don't think so. That is what my definition of "will work" would be.
Their definition of "will work" is that it will provide them with statistics, random sample effectively, of how the infection is spreading and how effective various measures are controlling it. They are asserting that this will give them enough data at 40% usage to make those assessments and then relax social distancing or other countermeasures so that the economy will pick up. That's what the Government means by "will work".
With the app missing more cases than it gets I feel that doing this would put individuals in harms way. So I won't download the app so I will not be counted as part of the 40% who, in effect, vote for this to happen by downloading the app. I am effectively voting against throwing people under the bus in favor of profit.I believe this could just as easily trigger a second wave of Covid-19 as benefit us. Singapore used an app when they were doing well and now look at them.
Governments of all colors are very good at dressing things up as something they aren't and all the sheeple just follow on blindly without giving it proper thought. They don't call him Scotty From Marketing for nothing.
Fake COVIDsafe SMS messages appearing.
Attachment 472592
Attachment 472593
Could not agree more with this statement. Firmly believe that this app will be for statistical data with no real world affect on the spread of the virus.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
The CMO yesterday defined pretty clearly what "works" means yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
One aspect he described is it "automates largely what is done already, so it should save as much work as what the uptake and active use achieves".
There are somewhere around 7000 tracing staff working on locating contacts of infectees.
If 10% of the people use COVID safe it will save ~700 staff, so 700 x $1500 a week = or $105,000 a week, if 50% use it will save 50% of staff or $525,000 a week. Over 6 months that $136 million of taxpayers money. I doubt it will be that much but even if it saves a few $$ its better than nothing. These are his arguments not mine.
In terms of practical individual effectiveness this will vary enormously from individual to individual.
For an old farts like me (dare I say US?) who have very little >15 min contacts with unknown persons it won't matter much or at all so it won't matter much if we download the app. Like I said in my post above I ended up with about 1 >15 minute contact per week and I make it my business to know who I make contact with
For a 20 something (I'm picking on this age group because they have the highest infection rates) flighty, social butterfly type who daily commutes of public transport, works in place with large numbers of people and regularly "drops in" to see mates etc these people may end up with dozens of >15 minute contacts per week. The added benefit for these people is they will often make >15min "unknown" contacts which is where the apps should come be useful in tracing them or the unknowns.
I'm more interested in my personal close, <15 min close contacts, like the blood test I am going for this morning. If the phlebotomist is infected, even if she is running the app that won't help me because the blood draw takes less than 15 minutes. However ,the medical records of the blood collection centre will have my details and conversely if I am infected I can at least tell the medical detectives that I had a close contact with a phlebotomist and they can take it from there.
So to paraphrase; the app will work better if more people make use of it; but I'm not going to use it. Something of a paradox; but that's just my opinion, and of course you are free to have a differing opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
As for Singapore; they took their foot off the brakes too soon. The green light they saw was not the one immediately in front of them! They made a bad call. As far as I know, the app had next to nothing to do with their decision, but correct me if I have missed something.
My goal was never to persuade anyone they should or must do this. Just to present the facts about the app as a counterpoint to the [let's call it what it is] BS that the usual colourful "political" figures [I'm sure I don't need to name them...] have been ranting because they were beginning to feel as irrelevant as they actually are.
You may find the origin story of modern epidemiology fascinating. I will add a link below but the essence of it is John Snow worked out how and where an epidemic of Cholera was being propagated in Soho London.Quote:
Originally Posted by pintek
1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak - Wikipedia
He did with this statistics that -- funnily enough -- had a real world effect.
I wasn't going to contribute to this thread other than to vote in the poll. However, having read the comments, I believe that the app is really the government clutching at a straw and laying the ground for a chorous of "look what we did for you."
It seems doomed to failure as there are too many conditions to be met for it to work. At least 40% have to download the app and then that assumes all of that 40% have the app activated and have their phone with them. This probably means that to achieve that 40% a much higher figure is required.
The fundamental problem I see is that the app will encourage the populace to engage in practices that will lead to infection. It is a retrospective measure and not a preventative measure. One that will lead people into a false sense of confidence. It also supposes that you need fifteen minutes of close contact to contract the virus. I would suggest that one minute of contact in some circumstances is more than sufficient.
Just for the record I voted "unlikely" based on the comments above and particularly because I don't use a mobile phone. I have just realised as I write that I don't know what SWMBO is going to do: I must ask her. She has just replaced her old phone yesterday and while the new phone (I phone) is likely to have battery charge (unless the app does indeed drain the battery) she still has to remember to take it with her: Something that appears not to be second nature.
Theoretically we are both in the "high risk" category by virtue of age, but i don't see this technology as the answer to contracting the virus. Do the simple, common sense action and stay away from people.
Regards
Paul
Not really a paraphrase, is it? I never said it would work if more people used it, did I?Quote:
Originally Posted by markharrison
I said:-
My intention there was to point out that the Government was setting 40% as the benchmark where they felt they had a mandate to make decisions based on the data. I never meant to imply that more than 40% would work any better. As I indicated earlier, I do not wish to be a part of granting that mandate to the government, hence I will not download the app.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
Bushmiller, who posted later, may have explained it a little better when he said:-
I had not thought it necessary to expand on my earlier comments to include that much detail but apparently, in the interest of brevity, I did not add sufficient detail and left it open to an interpretation I had not intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
I agree with Bushmiller about the app leading people to take unnecessary risks as they somehow feel "protected" by the new invisible forcefield on their phone; just as the behavior I see from mask wearers being the ones most likely to breach social distancing in supermarkets as the mask gives them a false sense of protection.
As for your data remaining private and not available to the Government or anyone else - Once you give them permission to download the data, it will then be reformatted into another document, in this case a telephone log of people who need to be contacted. That document, as far as I know, will be subject to a different set of restrictions than the original download and will include more data as the calls are completed. This new data, containing your original data may be more readily available out of necessity to action it but it will contain all of your original data. This is a process "known in the trade" as sanitising. As I explained in an earlier post, that does not bother me personally in the slightest. Others may well have valid grounds for not wanting this to happen.
As for the 15 minute rule, has anyone seen a scientific explanation anywhere that explains why this was set as the trigger for a contact to count? Without a scientific basis it could just be a device to keep the data to a manageable level and nothing more. I would have thought that the person behind me in a checkout queue sneezing two or three times 1.5 metres away for two minutes or even less on the social distance marker was a more significant contact than standing and talking with someone a metre away for 15 minutes. But which one will the app pick up?
Agreed. As far as I'm concerned the most disturbing thing so far has been the carrot dangling.
How is it possible that the restrictions can be relaxed if 40% or more people download an app that clearly cannot stop you getting infected, or anybody else for that matter....seriously?
I will respond to the rest of this later (cos working right now) but I can confirm that the battery usage I have seen is so low, it barely registers. It must be in the fractions of a percent for it to not show in the iPhone energy usage. The lock screen uses about 4-5% for a meaningful comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
That would partly be because (like most of you) I am barely leaving the house. I said barely, but that doesn't mean I am not leaving the house, and I do carry my phone with me. A long held habit because I have had one for so long.
Time related breathing related infections have been studied in some detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
Recent research by Raina MacIntyre's group from the Kirby Institute has shown that by far most likely chance of infection is being for some time in the vicinity of an infected person breathing normally. The air volume around the infected starts to build up with <5 micron aerosols containing the virus and over time, if there is no or poor ventilation, a few viruses can spread as far as 8 metres but with the greatest viral loads closer to the infected person. Remember the chance of catching the virus from a few lone viruses is very low - the greater the viral load you take on board the more chance there is of you catching it. Viral load up take depends on amount of virus in the air and the number of breaths you take of that virally loaded air. The longer and closer to the infected person the greater the total viral uptake so the greater the chances of being infected. Unless you rapidly open your mouthing and take a couple deep breaths immediately after the sneeze the viral load from a couple of sneezes into your face is going to be significantly less than 15 minutes of regular breathing near an infected person also normally breathing.
On Coronacast yesterday Norman Swan discusses the 15 minute figure and said there have been studies that show that longer contacts significantly increase the chances of picking up the virus.
This is why its commonly picked up'
- in families
- at events like weddings etc
- in restaurants as opposed to picking up a takeaway. The most likely people to get it in restaurants are persons seated close to a carrier (not an infected waiter).
- in workplaces especially nursing homes and hospitals
- by travellers who spend time together.
- by people who sing in choirs
Etc
The chances of picking up the virus in a supermarket or Centrelink queue are so low the authorities are not concerned with that.
While the >15 minute time covers the most likely pickup time period, there is a certain amount of "keeping data manageable". This is why I'm keeping my own list of contacts.
BUT let's get back to the main aim of the App which is to reduce the huge workload of the virus detectives who trace and contact possible viral contactees. People who don't use the app are really just making their jobs more miserable. The App won't cure the virus but it will make current tracing operations much easier and catch more unknown contacts than is possible at present. If I was a 20 something social butterfly "spreader" then I would use it. If you become infected the app does not replace the interview with the disease detective. They still have to be told about any <15 minute potential contacts of known persons. But then instead of guessing the identity of the >15 minute known contacts they can contact them with the single push of a button.
Even though the Govt touts 40% It doesn't need 40% to work. To work it just has to reduce workload on the disease detectives. If 1% of people use it, it will recede the work load of these detectives by about 1%, if 50% use it it will reduce the load much further.
I realise that this is a developing thread and the information regarding the "äpp" is only coming out in dribs and drabs, so I understand for many it's difficult to make a comprehensive assessment of it.
Anyway, this little nugget just dropped;
Needless to say "fully owned by a Chinese company" is a delusional expression.Quote:
Questions have been raised over the fact that the American cloud provider Amazon Web Services, which was given a Federal Government contract to store data collected by the government's COVIDSafe app, is using a data centre in Sydney which is fully owned by a Chinese company.
Please feel free to read the article in question, it'll make your toes curl.
iTWire - COVIDSafe app: AWS using Chinese-owned data centre in Sydney, says Husic
but @feckit, that is like saying that you shouldn't buy from the ABC store (are they still a thing?) because they're in a shopping centre owned by a foreign company.
Global Switch is a landlord. They run the electricity to keep the lights on and have a security guard at the door. What AWS or anyone do with their allocated and locked segment of the shopping centre is somewhat irrelevant to the landlord, and conversely, there's very little that the landlord does that can influence what the tenant does. That also trickles down from AWS (the service provider) to the COVIDSafe app; as long as you choose to use AWS' standard blocks, there's nothing they really know about your app other than you have bytes stored on disks they manage.
Well it would help if the App was compatible with my phone, it's not really old (Android 5.0.2), but I'm hardly going to go out and buy a new phone just to run it. :phone1:
That sounds like a newer version than my jamb tin and string Mark II :qQuote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
I was forced to upgrade my perfectly functional Jam Tin and String Mark I a couple of years ago when the internet banking app refused to run anymore. Worse than that it also stopped running on my Samsung 7.7" Wifi only tablet (Android 3.2 that I used far more frequently than the phone) after it had an upgrade that required the app to run on a phone with a sim card!
If they can use this technology in a drone, they could also use it at the entrance of shopping centres, sports stadiums and anywhere else that people gather. A '''pandemic drone''' and other technology could help limit the spread of coronavirus and ease restrictions sooner, but at what cost? - ABC News
I've been doing a good deal of gardening recently. Its a communal building, but they enjoy that its kept neat.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
I bought and wear a Vietnamese "Non La" hat. It was only $15 delivered and the hand made quality is absolutely outstanding. I bought two.
Its absolutely fantastic - completely brilliant for Oz. Over the summer its been double-excellent! Kept me free of the sun, being burnt and (reasonably) cool (for the 43° days).
On another matter, and this might upset some people, but I also bought a ball bearing shanghai and a South African "Sjambok". Simple is better is troubling times.
Sci-fi often has stories of these tracking drones. Simple things overcome their ability to read them. A HAT is one of them. Simple black clothing...
A broad hat is a very sensible thing to have on in Australia considering the UV, sunburn, skin cancer and the sun... don't you think?
It would work much better against more threats if you line it with aluminium foil too.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
The very first thing that popped into my head(hope the thought police were not around)Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
Was 1984 by George Orwell.
It may not happen in my life time,but that technology in the wrong hands(Chinese communist party plus others)
I would be a recking ball to modern society.
Cheers Matt.
And that's just ONE of the ethical dilemmas that are on our horizon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simplicity
The PM has been "dangling the carrot" of lifting more COVOD19 restrictions if we download the App. :yucky::puke:
What about people who think the lifting of existing restrictions are going a bit too fast?
Doesn't this give these people another reason not to download it.
AND
What about those who want the freedoms but not the app, they can just down load the App but not run it.
Too many ins, outs, sideways and verticals involved, not to mention treating Australians like preschoolers.
The eyes of Australia will be on the states that are lifting restrictions tomorrow to see how they are looking in a few weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
I hope they will be doing great but I am not optimistic that this will be the case.
I got told Yesterday, I think it was, that the app has been automatically put on your phone.
If you got to settings, then under health I think it was, the app is there. Can confirm the details on Monday if I'm wrong.
This apparently only applies to the fancy smart type phones.
Big brother is watching where and who you associate with!!!!!
Kryn
I seriously doubt IT - if so this would be all over the media AND in in courts faster than COVID19 .Quote:
Originally Posted by KBs PensNmore
Don't know about the latest Vic cases but up until last Sunday the App has apparently not revealed any contacts that was not picked up by conventional means. Just listening to Norman Swan's take and he reckons the App should start to be more useful in the Vic situation.
You are correct. It is there.
Is is under Google Settings. All you have to do is ïnstall it or finish setting up a participating app. That it is not already running is probably delusional.
Not happy about this. Not one # bit.
No App has been installed - all that has been added is the OS requirements to be able to install and run the Android/Apple COVID tracking App.Quote:
Originally Posted by KBs PensNmore
See
Have Apple And Google Uploaded A COVID-19 Tracking App To Your Phone? The Facts Behind The Furor
You still have to download and activate the app.
FWIW it's not the same app as the Aust Govt App as it puts you in charge of your own data - no-one - not even you, can see who you have been in contact with.
Even if the authorities confiscate your phone they cannot see the contacts and there's no central data repository of the contacts and all of your old contacts get wiped after 14 days.
It's designed so that if you become infected, you can decide if you want to automatically anonymously notify your contacts (which you cannot see).
It does not notify the contacts who it was that sent them the message, just tells them they have been in contact with a "known" infected.
Now all I can see is a chance to make mischief.
After every time someone takes a long trip on public transport they can fire off the contact list the app has acquired and cause dozens of people to become concerned and go and get tested unnecessarily.
Bob has adequately debunked this so I won't go into that any further.Quote:
Originally Posted by KBs PensNmore
Unfortunately the internet (read as, social media) is full of people whose lives are so pitiful that the only jollies they get in life is making stuff up and winding other people up.
If you see something on the internet and you are not certain if it is real; you're probably right.
I'm late and in the states, you know, the new epicenter where people are falling like feathers....
....ok, we have covid cases here but the reality is that only those who have occupational exposure and those who frequent bars and gyms are at that much of a chance of getting covid (and those who live with people who match that).
The whole initial "you'll touch it and get it" thing didn't really match the chinese studies or the news about mass exposure (in an enclosed environment with high viral load, like the early nursing homes, or at bars and parties) or how the progression (best off if low infection that eventually progresses to the lungs, worst breathing a lot, presumably because the bits go far into the lungs and there's less time for peoples' bodies to perfect an attack).
That said, I have asthma, supposedly that makes me at risk - if I had exposure potential, I would use a tracking app *as a courtesy to other people*.
If anyone is naive enough to think that their phone vendors aren't connecting identifiable location data to them and anyone they're with and selling it to someone else (including the government when the government has a need), they're completely in the weeds. The data is valuable and this just is - the whole setup is so far ahead of the legislative process that there's no reason to worry about privacy. you give that up with the phones and become a mark when getting upset about it and thinking that a later apology clears everything up (when it just lubricates everyone past the issue).
I'm sure we have some loony tunes here in the states who would get in a fistfight over the idea of a tracking app, but the same people would check their email and make sure they had their phone with them while fleeing the scene.
That's an excellent expression, never heard it before, hope you don't mind me borrowing it.Quote:
when it just lubricates everyone past the issue
@DW, I wouldn't understate the community infection like your words seem to imply. The current state of affairs in Victoria has come about through casual acquaintances of work colleagues, and social distancing not being considered important. The story we're hearing is that people sharing a cigarette break and sharing lighters were sufficient to pass this on. Hardly a party, a bar, or a nursing home. Sorry to be blunt, but your mis-informed statement is not what the AU medical profession want us to behave like, otherwise we will also get out of control community transmission.
There is a new consensus (as in the past few days) from researchers that this is actually airborne. Which would explain a lot of the unknown infections origins.Quote:
Originally Posted by D.W.
And that there is the nub of the problem of modern life. Courtesy and consideration are now considered by a significant portion of people to be quaint and old-fashioned. Maybe that was always true and we didn't notice before social media...Quote:
Originally Posted by D.W.
You can roughly triangulate approximate proximity from cell tower data. It is several order of magnitude more difficult though and not as precise. This is an area I have expertise in.Quote:
Originally Posted by D.W.
Don't worry, we have them too. Ignorance has never been a hindrance to strongly held opinions anywhere! At least now we have a name for it: The Dunning-Kreuger Effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by D.W.
I think you need to be a bit more selective about determining what's likely vs. what's possible, but it's not up to me what you determine is worth your while - it's up to you. Respiratory viruses are most easily passed by breathing droplets with the virus in them. The initial scare stories about aerosolization are based on being able to find the virus. I'm sure when you fart, there's virus (not you, specifically), just as they were able to find viable virus on a cruise ship in CA 17 days after it was unboarded (whatever the right word is for that). The issue isn't whether or not the virus is there, but is it there in such a way that we are likely to contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by poundy
your cigarette example is two-pronged - how close are you smoking cigarettes, is someone coughing or is it windy? If you are sitting on a bench somewhere and you both continue to clear your throats while smoking, that seems dumb, but it can do the very thing that's not debatable - toss droplets into the air, from one person to another. Would you share a cigarette? I sure hope not, so let's put that one out. If you're outside with a friend and there's a breeze, I doubt you'll ever be able to get a significant enough amount to be dosed.
I have not participated in the wiping down mail stuff or any of that other nonsense - I read studies on the NIH website here in the states (many from China, but they did an excellent job below the surface of politics of providing good study information). I paid attention to the cases where a large percentage became very sick (that's what you want to avoid). It was always inside somewhere that someone could get a significant viral load in an enclosed space.
I mentioned above why this is important to me. It was unclear how much of a risk factor asthma was, and there was a lot of intentional misinformation by the government (don't buy toilet paper, diarrhea isn't a symptom - yet chinese study information showed that it was a symptom about 50% of the time, you don't need n95 masks and they shouldn't be publicly available - well, the viral particles are. 07 to .09 micron in size. How big are the droplets? i don't know. If they're telling us at the time that it could be aerosolized and not just droplet transmissions, they're also advocating that we should essentially make a bucket out of 1" screen to hold sand.
The whole 6 foot thing is easy to communicate to people. When you're inside, it's not adequate. When you're outside and just passing people casually, it's probably not necessary at all.
Why aren't things communicated so? The government (yours included) has no real requirement to give you precise information.
What did ours do? They came out later and said they lied about the masks to protect health care professionals. I knew that's what they were doing. Then, they followed up to say that they thought transmission by touching mail and purchased items was very unlikely, and now the sentiment seems to be coming forward here that it's almost entirely transferred from one person to another in enclosed spaces by breathing, not touching. Again, what's likely, not what's possible. If 1% of the transmission is by touching and 99% by breathing, I know where I'm spending my time.
One more-follow-up comment. We never had high viral numbers here (pittsburgh) early on. We shut down early, and the spreading points for the virus were either areas with lots of travel from china (california, the west coast) or europe (NYC tourism, i'm sure there was euro and chinese travel there). That makes us ripe for the second wave. About a month ago we reopened bars. I told my wife that I will not go to a bar or sit in a restaurant because the second wave will come from younger people in bars and people who go to restaurants. If the restaurant is outside, then i'd be OK with that. The virus survives only a couple of hours at the very most out side and if it's on a surface, the issue is simple - I don't get a big dose of it in my nose, mouth or eyes. Not difficult.
So, we have a second wave here now. Double the case count that we had before. Median age this time, 31. That wasn't hard to figure out. I wear a cloth mask here in situations where it's legally required, but many of those aren't likely for transmission. If you get food at a drive through here, you must wear a mask. Transmission is extremely unlikely, but it's the law. I'll make fun of it. I will not frequent elevators somewhere that there is a high infection rate. The CDC suggests no more than 3 people in an elevator at one time, and people should stand in corners to be 6 feet apart. This is sheer stupidity. We are told that we should sanitize our fingers (elevator buttons) and the subject of a tiny space that could be filled with droplets for a very long time (and you'd never see nor near the person who coughed or sneezed them) doesn't come up.
The problem with understanding this for many is that it's become regional and political. That's dumb. Politics doesn't solve problems. Politics uses problems. I solve problems for a living - I can find a better answer than the government's general guidelines.
Think about the drug study info. Chloroquine - half of the country here likes it, half hates it. Because of politics. It has a small statistically non-significant benefit. In my mind, it's not worth getting concerned over either way. Any treatment that is materially beneficial would show significance. The next wonder something or other, remdesivir - the Chinese did studies along with chloroquine. Again, no significant benefit. Initial studies here, no benefit. When it became politically popular to find an alternative to Chloroquine (which probably served mostly as placebo), then suddenly, remdesivir ignores a bunch of previous studies, they claim to have found a weak positive effect (again, not statistically significant) and suddenly, it's "how long until this drug is available?"
I believe that people would make a request to their doctors (and even some ground level docs will prescribe) based on their political views. That's stupid.